offside after knock on

[chbg]

He is in front of the team mate who last played the ball. Because the ball has been knocked on he can't play it from an on side position. Not to be confused with something like a kick ahead . It may sound counterintuitive in that context but it does have its own ruling and it is killing the advantage.

When the KO occurred he was not offside, therefore he was on-side. As no-one else played the ball (unless the original KO player had a second KO touch of the ball), he remains on-side independent of from which direction he approaches the ball.

 

[ChuckieB]

When the KO occurred he was not offside, therefore he was on-side. As no-one else played the ball (unless the original KO player had a second KO touch of the ball), he remains on-side independent of from which direction he approaches the ball.

What would be the law reference to confirm your assertion he is onside? You are only onside if you or not offside and the only point at which being onside is referred to in the older versions of the laws is at the start of the game. From then on you may find yourself offside in any instance by being in front of a player who last played the ball and thus liable to penalty. When you are offside in this way you have to make yourself onside. No references to being onside because you ran from an onside position before you played the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

What would be the law reference to confirm your assertion he is onside?

Law 10.1:

[LAWS]A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it
[/LAWS]

As Green #7 was behind the team mate who knocked the ball on when he knocked it on, he is onside and free to continue to participate in the game.

It is quite legal for him to play the ball even if it prevents the opposition from trying to gain an advantage.

 

[OB..]

Onside or offside is determined at the moment the ball is (mis)played. There is a diagram in the laws demonstrating this - it shows that a player coming from behind the kicker is onside. He does not become offside on passing the teammate who last played the ball.
[LAWS]10.7 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
[/FONT]a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area.[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][/LAWS]

This is so well known that the lawmakers did not realise 10.1 could be misunderstood as saying that you become offside when you pass the player who knocked on.

 

[ChuckieB]

Onside or offside is determined at the moment the ball is (mis)played. There is a diagram in the laws demonstrating this - it shows that a player coming from behind the kicker is onside. He does not become offside on passing the teammate who last played the ball.
[LAWS]10.7 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
[/FONT]a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area.[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][/LAWS]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

 

[nhughes]

Forgive my simplicity here but seeing as the ball was knocked on by green 14 why does it matter that green 7 was offside or not? To my mind it's a penalty for a knock on instead of offside as given. Sorry but a bit lost as to what the problem is other than giving a penalty instead of a scrum?

 

[Arabcheif]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

No-one is saying there was no offence. There was a knock-on. The Green 7 ran passed his team mate (was on-side) then went to ground to protect the ball. This is not an offence. The offence is the knock on, so scrum Blue should've been the correct call as there was no advantage. Green 7 committed no offence.

I thought this was weird myself when I watched it and wondered who had been deemed offside.

 

[Rich_NL]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

At the point of the ball being played, all team mates in front of the ball player are offside. This was not the case here. The player went to ground to gather the ball, as was his right, and was incorrectly penalised for something he did not do. Had he secured the ball, the correct call would be to go back for the scrum.

Forgive my simplicity here but seeing as the ball was knocked on by green 14 why does it matter that green 7 was offside or not? To my mind it's a penalty for a knock on instead of offside as given. Sorry but a bit lost as to what the problem is other than giving a penalty instead of a scrum?

I really don't follow this point. Penalties and scrums are not interchangeable; why would you give a penalty for an accidental knock on like that? Why is awarding the Italians a penalty for an offence that didn't happen not a problem?

 

[SimonSmith]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

if I'm understanding this correctly:
You are arguing that if Green knock on, they should leave the ball for Blue to play to use advantage from the knock on?

This is Chopper territory. There is no obligation on Green to do that in any way.

 

[Taff]

Forgive my simplicity here but seeing as the ball was knocked on by green 14 why does it matter that green 7 was offside or not? To my mind it's a penalty for a knock on instead of offside as given. Sorry but a bit lost as to what the problem is other than giving a penalty instead of a scrum?

Yes, it does matter if Green 7 was offside or not.

If he wasn't offside then it's just a scrum as you suggest for an accidental knock on.

If he was offside and played the ball, then it's a Penalty kick (PK) offence for being offside and playing the ball.

 

[didds]

Forgive my simplicity here but seeing as the ball was knocked on by green 14 why does it matter that green 7 was offside or not? To my mind it's a penalty for a knock on instead of offside as given. Sorry but a bit lost as to what the problem is other than giving a penalty instead of a scrum?

a penalty for a knock-on? (I note its not deliberate etc etc).

??

didds

 

[OB..]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

The ball was knocked on by Green 14. At that moment Green 7 was behind him and therefore NOT offside. He can therefore run in front of Green 14 and play the ball - he does NOT become offside when going past Green 14. The result is a scrum against Green 14.

(The problem was that Green 7 was incorrectly judged to be in front of Green 14 when he knocked on.)

 

[ChuckieB]

The ball was knocked on by Green 14. At that moment Green 7 was behind him and therefore NOT offside. He can therefore run in front of Green 14 and play the ball - he does NOT become offside when going past Green 14. The result is a scrum against Green 14.

(The problem was that Green 7 was incorrectly judged to be in front of Green 14 when he knocked on.)

Do coaches have the mindset to coach , "If a ball is knocked on, kill it."? This will immediately and deliberately deny the chance of any advantage.

Just asking. Doesn't seem wholly equitable perhaps?

 

[Wedgie]

Do coaches have the mindset to coach , "If a ball is knocked on, kill it."? This will immediately and deliberately deny the chance of any advantage.

Just asking. Doesn't seem wholly equitable perhaps?

If Green 7 was close enough to get to the knocked-on ball before Blue, then it is unlikely that any advantage would have accrued had he not played the ball - as he would have been close enough to tackle any Blue player as soon as *they* did. Scrum to Blue from the knock on or Blue tackled in possession of the ball. Not much in it.

 

[crossref]

Do coaches have the mindset to coach , "If a ball is knocked on, kill it."? This will immediately and deliberately deny the chance of any advantage.

Just asking. Doesn't seem wholly equitable perhaps?

Of course they do !
Play to the whistle, until the whistle goes the whole team are still competing for the ball (legally) advantage doesn't mean : allow the other team to get an advantage

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Do coaches have the mindset to coach , "If a ball is knocked on, kill it."? This will immediately and deliberately deny the chance of any advantage.

Just asking. Doesn't seem wholly equitable perhaps?

Of course they do.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

He is in front of the team mate who last played the ball. Because the ball has been knocked on he can't play it from an on side position. Not to be confused with something like a kick ahead . It may sound counterintuitive in that context but it does have its own ruling and it is killing the advantage.

Simply wrong in law. Sorry.

 

[Dickie E]

If I was the captain or coach, and one of my team knocked the ball on, then stood there like a stunned mullet waiting for the opposition to try to gain an advantage ... I'd be having words.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What would be the law reference to confirm your assertion he is onside? You are only onside if you or not offside and the only point at which being onside is referred to in the older versions of the laws is at the start of the game. From then on you may find yourself offside in any instance by being in front of a player who last played the ball and thus liable to penalty. When you are offside in this way you have to make yourself onside. No references to being onside because you ran from an onside position before you played the ball.

If this made any sense you could never chase a kick. Sorry this is worrying .

 

[Marc Wakeham]

...at the point the ball is (mis)played by whom?

In this instance if the majority commenting are suggesting there was no offence. What then?

Your unintended consequence opens up the scope for players to get it into their psyche to deliberately kill the ball without risk of sanction.

Hardly in accord with the spirit and intent of the advantage law.

Which is exactly what any good player would do. Your team has conceded the scrum why would they, potentialy give up a try? Sorry but you are so far off the ball here.